Author 






.J 






Title 



•i A ic "> 



Class 



LB..2L824 

Book .-_„»„iS 



Imprint. 



Copy "^ 



PY cL 



16—47372-1 



The Merchants' Association of New York. 



The Increase in Taxation 
AND THE Outlays or the 

Board or Education. 



FEBRUARY 4, ipoi. 



Tht Increase in Taxation and the Out- 
lays of the Board of Education. 



New York, Jan. 21, igoi. 
7 TNDERdate of December ig, igoo, we published an ^''Analysis 
^^ of School Expenses of the City of New York," to show, 
by an example, the insufficiency of the public reports which are 
assumed to explain the public business to taxpayers. 

Specific examples of questionable outlays for school purposes 
were given in full detail, showing that for janitor sendee, gen- 
eral repairs, school 'supplies, fuel and lighting the pro rata 
expense in ManJiattan is much greater than i?i Brooklyn; that 
the records of school attendance, upon zvhich are based demands 
for more money for new schools, are contradictory, and there- 
fore unreliable; that an appropriation is asked to buy supplies 
for pupils in schools not yet built, and that an excessive allow- 
ance is made for supplies. 

In response, under date of January J, igoi, the Board of 
Education has addressed to the Mayor a '''Report in Regard to 
a Statement, dated December ig, igoo. Published and Circulated 
Through the Medium of the Board of Directors of The Mer- 
chants' Association of New York." This document zvholly 
ignores the question at issue, namely, whether the public 
reports of the Board of Education are worthless or suffi- 
cient; and either ignores or evades all our essential specifica- 
tions which show prima facie wasteful outlays. 

The documents that follow relate to the causes of excessive 
taxation in the city. They set forth the amount of the outlays 
by the Board of Education, the insufficiency of the reports tn 
relation to those outlays, and the irrelevance of the Board of 
Education' s Report of January jth as a reply to the issue raised 
by our ^^ Analysis " of December igth: 



/. Letter from Miles M. O'Brien^ Esq., President Board 
of Education, denouncing our Analysis as an '"'' unfair and 
unjust attack," and protesting because we had not ^^ first inves- 
tigated thoroughly the records at the office of the Board.'' 

II. Letter to Miles M. O'Brien, Esq., President Board 
of Education, showi?ig that the office records of that Board have 
no bearing upon our assertion that its public reports are worth- 
less, because defective. 

Ill Rejoinder to the ■ ' ' Report of the Board of Education, ' ' 
showing that in less than four years that Board had spent some 
$i8,ooo;000 for additional school properties; that it increased 
the pro rata outlay for a given seating capacity by about 50 per 
cent., exclusive of the cost of sites, and that its pro rata outlay 
for maintenance and operation has increased nearly ^8 per cent, 
since i8g6; and further showing that the Report of the Board 
to the Mayor does not meet the essential allegations of our 
''''Analysis''' of December igth. 

The Merchants^ Association of New York. 



NEW YORK PUBL. LIBR. 
IN £XCHANQ£. 



L 

Letter from Mites M, O^^rietif 'President ^oard of 
Education* 



Board of Education, Park Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street, 
New York, December 21, 1900. 

William F. King, Esq., 

President The Merchants' Association. 
My Dear Sir: 

I was rather astonished to see by to-day's papers that your 
Association countenanced an attack on the Board of Education 
without first investigating thoroughly the records at the offices of 
the Board, as to whether there was cause for what I consider 
the most unfair and unjust attack ever made on public officials. 
However, the statement made by your so-called expert will be 
answered in the near future. In the meantime, may I ask you to 
send me, to the office, in the Board of Education, half a dozen 
copies of the report referred to. 

Very truly yours, 
{Signed) Miles M. O'Brien, 

President "Board of Education. 



IL 

^ply to Miles M* O'Brien, Esq., President Board of 
Education* 

The Merchants' Association, \ 
December 24, 1900. ) 

Hon. Miles M. O'Brien, 

President of the Board of Education, 

Park Avenue and 59TH Street, City. 

Dear Sir: 

Your letter of December 21st to Mr. Wm. F. King, Presi- 
dent of the Merchants' Association, has been referred to me. It 
contains the following sentence: 

" I was rather astonished to see by to-day's papers that 
your Association countenanced an attack on the Board of 
Education without first investigating thoroughly the records 
at the office of the Board, as to whether there was cause for 
what I consider the most unfair and unjust attack ever made 
on public officials." 

The office records of the Board of Education have no bearing 
whatever upon the question whether the public reports of that 
Board so explain its business affairs that taxpayers can judge for 
themselves whether the school fund is well managed or mis- 
managed. 

I have not alleged that the office records of the Board of 
Education do not fully explain every outlay, and account satis- 
actorily for every dollar spent. I have not alleged mismanage- 
ment by the Board. I have made no attack, just or unjust, upon 
public officials. I have, however, asserted, and now reassert, 
that the public reports of the Board of Education do not exhibit 
in useful form the essentials of its business affairs, and that the 
estimates submitted by it to the Board of Estimate and Appor- 
tionment do not inform that body of the true nature of the out- 
lays proposed. 

Your public reports are the public accounting which you 
and your fellow-public-servants make of the vast trust fund con- 



fided to you. Those reports are the only practicable means lor 
scrutinizing your official acts. They are the mediums through 
which the people learn what you do, and why you do it. Their 
purpose is to explain the doings and the outlays of the Board of 
Education. The office records have nothing to do with that. 
You do not reach the public through your office records. 

The sole question at issue, therefore, is not what your office 
records show, but what your public reports show, whether they 
contain the essential facts necessary to exhibit the business man- 
agement of the schools, and what conclusions should be drawn, 
not only from what the reports contain, but from what they 
omit. 

I assume that public reports should explain themselves ; if 
they do not, they are defective and, therefore, worthless. You 
imply that to properly construe your public reports, an inquirer 
must " thoroughly investigate your office records." 1 ask you 
to observe that I am discussing the nature of certain public re- 
ports and estimates made by the Board of Education, and not 
the nature of the office records of that body. When you imply 
that your office records explain your reports, you admit that 
your reports need explanation. That is, you admit that they 
are defective, and thereby admit the essence of my contention. 

Is it your position that it is not requisite for a public report 
to contain or explain the essentials of its subject matter ? Is it 
your idea that people who want information about school affairs 
have no right to expect to find it in public reports, published ex- 
pressly to give that information ? Do you hold that because 
your office records may possibly explain what your public re- 
ports do not, your reports should not be criticized by those who 
find them defective and believe that their defects not only make 
them worthless, but also hide large apparent waste .? If such 
are your views, a discussion of what public reports are for, and 
what they should contain is certainly timely, and even necessary. 

You seemingly hold all these views, for you denounce my 
review of your public reports as "an unjust and unfair attack," 
not on the ground that my statements are not true, but that I 
had no right to make them without thoroughly investigating 
your office records. 

1 do not agree with you. I think that your public reports 
should exhibit all the essentials of the business management of 

5 



the schools. You have no right to expect the public to search 
your office records (which is wholly impracticable) for what 
should be found in your public reports. If those reports are de- 
fective, their defects should be shown, and temperate criticism, 
sustained by proof, is not " an unjust and unfair attack." 

I have examined your public reports and your printed esti- 
mates with great care to learn whether they serve the public 
purpose intended, namely, that of a proper check upon public 
servants. I support my conclusion that they do not, by abun- 
dant evidence, drawn from the reports themselves, in ample 
detail, and with exact citations of authorities for all essential 
statements of fact. To this, you, in effect, rejoin that your 
office records explain what the public reports fail to explain. 

1 find in your public reports and estimates many things that 
need explanation. They relate to the use made of trust funds. 
There are omissions which make it very difficult to scrutinize 
and test certain outlays. When the omissions are supplied and 
the tests made, very large discrepancies appear. The conditions 
thus shown are identical with those which would result from 
waste or from fraud; they might also result from entirely proper 
causes. Suitable public reports would show whether they are 
the result of proper causes, of wastefulness and incompetency, 
or of actual corruption. 

The causes of such conditions should not only be explained, 
but should be explained publicly. I hold that public reports are 
the fitting vehicle for such explanation. A full public account- 
ing for trust funds is not only the best, but the only sufficient 
proof of a public servant's fidelity and capacity. Public reports 
are for the purpose of exhibiting the proof If they exhibit all 
the essential facts in summary and digest, they subject the 
official acts of public servants to review and criticism ; that is to 
say, they check waste and expose incapacity. If they are de- 
fective in substance or form, they fail of their purpose, and are, 
therefore, worthless. 

I have said that your public reports are worthless as a suffi- 
cient accounting for outlays of some $19,000,000. I have cited 
the reports themselves in proof of my assertion. I have shown 
that statements of facts found in your reports raise a presumption 
against certain classes of outlays of large amounts. I have shown 



that your reports do not destroy the presumption by justifying 
the outlays. 

Do you think such reports are what they should be, and 
above criticism ? I do not. On the contrary, I think the re- 
ports of the Board of Education are excellent examples of what 
public reports should not be. For that reason they are to be 
submitted to the Legislature to show why an effective system 
of public reports should be made compulsory. 
Very truly yours, 

{Signed) Frederick B. De Berard, 

For The Merchants' Association of New York. 



III. 

Refoinder to Reply of Board of Education, 

r TNDER date of December 19th The Merchants' Association 

of New York published a report which characterized as ' 
insufiFicient and worthless the official reports of the Board 
of Education, on the ground that they do not properly exhibit 
the business affairs of that body. The Board of Education in a 
formal report to the Mayor has replied under date of January 9, 
1 90 1. On the first page of the latter report, signed by Miles M. 
O'Brien, Esq., President of the Board of Education, appear these 
words : 

* * * " Emanating from an organization claiming to 
be devoted to mercantile and commercial interests, and 
having as its principal feature or line of action the regulating 
and disciplining of railroads and other corporations, when 
their interests unduly clash with those of the merchants, it 
suggests itself at once that there must be some particular 
reason or motive for this marked interest and activity in the 
line of educational research, which would appear to be 
somewhat remote from the sphere of usefulness in which 
the organization is ostensibly engaged. However, whatever 
the purpose may be, and what motives governed the twelve 
directors of The Merchants' Association in giving publication 
to an untruthful and mischievous statement, this department 
is not prepared to suggest at this time. Sufficient to say 
that the published statements attempt to convey improper 
impressions to the public mind, and appear to wantonly 
discredit the administration of one of the most important 
factors in city affairs, namely, the Public Schools of the City 
of New York." 

The object of The Merchants' Association of New York is to 
protect the business and property interests of this city against 
harmful artificial conditions of any and every kind, especially 
against discriminative charges and wrongful exactions from 
which the merchants of other cities are free, and which therefore 



make unequal conditions of competition between New York and 
other cities. Tliese include not only discriminative railroad 
rates, but all that affects the cost and selling prices of merchan- 
dise, such as unequal enforcement of the customs laws, excessive 
port and terminal charges, insufficient wharfage facilities, inade- 
quate ship channels leading into this harbor, and above all, 
•excessive and needless taxation. 

In the year 1890 the tax per capita in the City of New York 
— now the Borough of Manhattan — was $22.06. In the year 
1899 it was %}^ 49, an increase of more than 50 per cent. The 
expenses of this city pro rata are nearly twice as great as those 
of most other cities in the United States, In every department 
they have within a few years increased enormously without ob- 
vious justification therefor, or sufficient explanation by the city's 
executive officials. This is especially true of the Department of 
Education in the present Borough of Manhattan and the Bronx. In 
the year 1896 the outlay for maintenance of school properties and 
for teaching in that Borough was $5,643,368, or $28.73 P^*" 
pupil; for the current year, 1901, the appropriation is $10,689,- 
137, or approximately $44.30 per pupil. This is an increase of 
nearly 58 per cent, in the p^o rata cost. 

Between the Fall of 1895 and the Spring of 1899— a period 
of about 3>^ years — the Board of Education acquired, or began 
condemnation proceedings to acquire, in the Borough of 
Manhattan and the Bronx sites for nearly 60 new schools and 
from 90 to 100 other sites for additions to existing schools and 
for extension of school grounds. 

Two new school buildings and one addition were contracted 
for in i^()^. From January, 1896, to April, 1^99, contracts were 
made for ^6 additional new schools and 17 additions or annexes. 
The cost of buildings and equipment was about $10,000,000. 
The cost of the sites actually acquired by the city prior to April, 
1899, was approximately $=,,000,000. To pay for the sites then 
in process of condemnation required a probable outlay of $3,000,- 
000. Thus about $8,000,000 was paid for about 120 new sites 
to accommodate 56 new schools, additions and annexes, and 
for about 40 new sites to provide light and ventilation and to 
enlarge school yards. On a portion of these sites interest 
charges amounting to $136,000 were paid while condemnation 
proceedings were going on — a needless addition of about 10 per 



cent, to their cost. This was due to provisions of law and to 
delay by the Corporation Counsel's office. 

The purpose of this outlay of approximately $18,000,000 
in less than four years was to provide for the education of chil- 
dren excluded from the public schools because there were no 
seats for them. In fact, a large part of the money spent did not 
promote that purpose. It was invested in lots that could not be 
at once utilized; in new buildings in localities where the need 
for them was much less urgent than elsewhere, and in some 
instances non-existent; in expensive high-schools, for a class of 
pupils numbering but i>2 percent, of the whole, and in other 
school buildings of high cost, great size and relatively small 
seating capacity. The new buildings provide ample accommo- 
dations for janitors' work-rooms, and for heating and ventilating 
apparatus; ample recreation-rooms, which are certainly desira- 
ble, and even essential; ample assembly-rooms, which are very 
useful, and excellent roof playgrounds. These things are proper 
adjuncts, but not prime essentials; and they do not meet an exi- 
gency which demands class-rooms. When, as in former years, the 
Board of Education used the public funds primarily for class- 
rooms, the outlay of about $100,000 would build and equip a 
schoolhouse with a seating capacity for 1,000 pupils. Since 
1895 the cost has steadily increased. The recent average cost of 
buildings and equipments, omitting the cost of sites, is from 
$140,000 to $150,000 per 1,000 pupils, and in some cases as 
much as $224,000. 

For several years constant appeals have been made for 
money to save the schoolless children of this city from the ills of 
ignorance. About $18,000,000 was appropriated in three and 
one-half years. Of some $8,000,000 expended for sites, prob- 
ably $3,000,000 went for sites that cannot be put to use for 
several years and for enlarging the grounds about old schools. 
Of some $10,000,000 expended for buildings, at least one-third 
went to provide better conveniences and more attractive archi- 
tecture instead of seating capacity. It is fully conceded that the 
conditions demanded a heavy outlay. Not only more but also 
better school-buildings were imperative. Many of the old 
buildings were wholly out of date and inadequate for the more 
exacting needs of the present day. Beyond doubt a broad and 

10 



expansive policy having in view the future as well as the present, 
was wise and commendable. It is certain that large present 
investment in sites for future needs is prudent economy. Due 
provision for recreation and hygiene is certainly necessary ; possi- 
bly it could not or should not be postponed. But even so, the 
taxpayers of this city, whose money it is that has been expended, 
who have paid the enormously increased cost of this important 
department, should know the reasons for the policy, the warrant 
for the outlay and the results produced by it. They have now 
no practicable means of learning the facts. However war- 
rantable in itself the expenditure may be, there is no warrant 
for failure of an agent to clearly account to his principal for the 
outlay of moneys entrusted to him. This Board has added 
enormously to the burden of the taxpayers of this city. The 
manufacturing and mercantile interests and the owners of real 
estate are oppressed and burdened down by the excessive taxa- 
tion which now prevails, and they can learn no sound reason for 
the excess. 

The Board of Education had $18,000,000 in about four years 
on the plea that it was needed to educate children; and for that 
$18,000,000 that Board has provided but two-thirds of the seat- 
ing capacity which resulted from equal outlays five years ago. 

It is because similar conditions exist in all the departments of 
the city that The Merchants' Association of New York has taken 
up the task of learning the causes and the possible justification 
for these outlays. Incidental to that task an examination of the 
public reports of the Board of Education has warranted the 
statement in a previous publication by this Association that those 
reports are worthless for the public purpose intended, namely, 
exhibiting to taxpayers the exact disposal made of their 
money and the propriety of the outlays. In the publication en- 
titled " Analysis of School Expenses of New York," published 
under date of December 19th, 1900, examples of the insufficient 
nature of the reports of the Board of Education and of the con- 
tradictory character of the outlays set forth by them were given 
in minute detail. The statements made therein were not in the 
nature of an impeachment of the management or the integrity of 
the Board of Education. There was not in any manner any 

slur upon that Board, except as to the entire insufficiency of their 
L«fC. ^^ 



accounting to their principals, namely, to the public, for their 
stewardship. 

The President of the Board has chosen to regard this critical 
examination of an insufficient public document as a personal re- 
flection. In the Report to the Mayor, under date of January 9, 
1901, he has denounced the publication of this Association as 
malicious, wanton and falsified. Comment on Mr. O'Brien's 
adjectives is unnecessary. 

Mr. O'Brien wholly ignores the essential allegation made 
by this Association, namely, that the Reports of the Board of 
Education are worthless because insufficient; and the essential 
specifications that show prima facie waste and bad manage- 
ment. 

The intent of this Association is to bring about the adoption 
of a proper system of accounting by public officials and of pub- 
lic reports to taxpayers. The issue is stated clearly on pages 4 
to 7 in the letter addressed to Mr. O'Brien, which shows the 
reasons for declining here to discuss matters not germane to that 
issue. 

Mr. O'Brien uses forty pages of fine print and has the 
assistance of several of the principal officials of the Department 
of Education to admit that the Reports of the Board of Educa- 
tion do not explain themselves, and to declare that it is absurd 
for any layman or "so-called expert" to expect to understand 
them without the aid of an official interpreter, it is self-evident 
that Reports which need a forty-page argument to make them 
intelligible are defective. As Mr. O'Brien proves the defects by 
his explanation of them, it is needless to prove what he concedes. 

As to the details in which Mr. O'Brien indulges, it is suffi- 
cient to show that he evades all that is essential. 

It was alleged and supported by ample proof that in the 
Borough of Manhattan the pro rata cost of janitor service is 5 s per 
cent, more than in Brooklyn. Mr. O'Brien does not explain this. 

It was alleged that the cost of supplies for the teaching 
department of the Borough of Brooklyn had been raised in the 
estimate for the current year — iqoi — from $1.73 to $2.15 per 
scholar. This increase represents a wholly needless outlay, and 
is pure waste. Mr. O'Brien does not explain this. 

12 



It was alleged that an appropriation was asked for supplies 
for schools not yet built. Mr. O'Brien does not explain this. 

It was alleged that the cost of lighting and fuel in Manhat- 
tan was excessive in comparison with the cost in Brooklyn. 
The reply is merely an evasion. 

An attempt is made to explain the appropriation for general 
repairs. The statements made by Mr. O'Brien as to that item 
are wholly disingenuous. The specification was restricted to 
certain specific items in one branch of General Repairs and to 
certain specific schools in connection therewith. We did not dis- 
cuss the total outlay for every class of repairs in connection with 
those specific schools; but Mr. O'Brien has done so. That is 
not argument; it is perversion. 

As to the general charge of excessive outlay for general 
repairs, the statement on Page 7 of the Analysis of December 
19th gives the exact conditions as derived from the official 
reports of the Board of Education. The total outlay for both 
Boroughs agrees with that named by Mr. O'Brien, and it covers 
every class of repairs. The total number of sittings is that stated 
on Page 16 of the Annual Report of the Board of Education for 
18^9. The cost per thousand sittings is obtained by dividing the 
total outlay by the number of thousand sittings. Any one capable 
of ordinary arithmetic can verify the result. 

There remains in controversy only the subject of attendance. 
Our analysis discussed average daily attendance mainly with 
relation to total seating capacity. Superintendent Maxwell charges 
falsification of the aggregates by means of deducting from the 
official total attendance the number of evening pupils, and assum- 
ing the remainder as the day attendance. Our arraignment of 
the Reports of the Board of Education as insufficient rests upon 
the fact that proper knowledge of existing conditions cannot be 
learned from its pages. Mr. Maxwell proves our contention, as 
shown by the following citations : On Page 976 of the printed 
Budget for 1901 is a table, prepared by Mr. Maxwell and officially 
certified by him as correct, which was presented to the Board of 
Estimate and Apportionment as the statutory basis for distribution 
of the school moneys. In column two of the following schedule, 
it will be observed that the attendance therein stated is that of 
"ALL" pupils. If these words mean what people of ordinary 

13 









z 




< 




a 




Oi 




o 




u 




u 




< 




z 


NO 


Hi 


On 


Z 




o 


1^ 




^ 


O 

0. 


5! 


< 


uc, 


w 




CQ 


♦v 




>-^ 


O 


-^ 


H 


o\ 


C/5 


>-*> 






»— i O 


S 


C3S - 


P 


"" ti. 


l^ 


0. <^ 




< W) 


K, 




tt^ 


til -J 


^ 




td 


2 "^ 


fi^ 






a H 




z C. 


d 


D < 


1^ 




s 


< 


^ 


UJ 

z 






H 


o 


o 


I 


^ 


H 


g 


X 

y 

X 


^ 


^ 


^q 


z 









<N 


<^ 


o 


r^ <N) 








<N 


00 


^ 


O "^ 




0) m 




LTS 


^ 


•^ 


U-N 00 




-w >. 












- - 




n) . cS 




^ 


On 


MM 


C t^ 




g'SQ 








LTs 


O 00 




l- 3lM 




ex. 


^^ 


o 


iTN On 




^«° 




^ 


ITN 


rf 


-T ir^ 




< ^ 




-^ 


<N 






r^ 


-J 
















< 
















s- 






























o 
















H 


■d 
















C 3 i) 




U-N 


LfN 


'^ 


O ^ 






ON 


VO 


<N 


u-s rr^ 






ON 


r^ 


!>• 


tN r-' 


















3o>fl 




l/^ 


"N 






o" 




O 
















>- J. -a m aJ 1 


















aj-a ^ %H^g 


















B 1-! J ^ >■ M 




00 


On 








c^ 






"^ 


C~ 








.— « 


c/5 


gregate nu 
f days of al 
nee of 

ALL PUPi; 

etween foui 
wenty - one 
f age, durin 
chool year 
3U0. 




ON 

oo" 












o 




00 


NO 








ITS 


o 

X 

u 






t^ 












bijort jDiJOtn^H 
















< 


< 
















_i'/}(DO-l-"*"CODt«aj ' i> ^ 
















Bi 


f qual 
:acher 

ssi V 
1 wh' 
taugh 
term o 
3 tha: 

- t w 
)f fiv 
e day 
clusiv 
I holi 
ingth 
ar 189f 
















o 

a. 
















ca. 




o 


<S 








n 


O 


Number o: 
ified Ti 
or succe 
Teachers 
actually 
during a ' 
not less 
thirty 
weeks, c 
successiv 
each, in 
of legal 
days, dur 
school ye 
1900. 




n 


<N 








Tf 


U 




CN 










M 




u • -a 'fi V 1 
















"■« c bj=g; 
















eS 2 ''tl^ 




-^ 


'T 


o 


r 


-. i/^ 






00 


o 


^ 


c 


f^ 




gregate nu 
f days of at 
nee of 

ALL PUPI] 

etween four 
wenty - one 
f age, durin 
chool year 
300, 






q^ 


•^ 


if 

c 




00 




rj 


LTN 


li-N 


c 


> "-N 


_1 




q^ 


00 


o 


1/ 


^ 


O 

o 




<N 


"^ 


^ 


_ 


<N 


X 




^ 


<N 






r~ 


u 


C/JOrt jD^-iOWt-t 














00 

u 


< 














Number of qual- 
ified Teachersor 
successive qual- 
ified Teachers 
who actually 
taught in the 
public schools, 
during a term of 
not less than 
thirty- two 
weeks, of five 
successive days 
each, inclusive 
of legal holi- 
days, during the 
year 189ii-1900 














02 




Lr\ 


<^ 


'^t 


c 


M 


C- 




r— 


^■ 


<N 


1/ 


ON 










!>■ 


<M 


o" 






















x" 






















c 


















c/5 




o 

1-1 


















X 


Id 


CQ 


















O 


c 


V 


















O 


TO 

c 


jC 










Ti 








TO 
-t-t 
*-> 






WJ 


c 
o 


"to 
O 

H 




o 

CQ 


TO 

x: 
c 




O 


C 


E 






TO 




c 

i- 




3 

o 


; 


5 







14 



intelligence understand them to mean, they comprise both even- 
ing and day pupils, and warrant the deduction that if the evening 
attendance is subtracted from the total (which comprises all 
pupils) the remainder will be the day attendance. The fact that 
the Reports of the Board of Education do not state the day 
.attendance separately speaks for itself. No comment can add 
to its force. 

If Mr. Maxwell sees fit to charge falsification, and to impute 
wrongful motives, because it is assumed that his words mean 
what they seem to mean, then Mr. Maxwell has no fit knowledge 
of the duties of a public official or of the proprieties of his place. 

Wasteful public outlay means oppressive, and in the end 
destructive, taxation. The effect is already partially evident. 
An enormous volume of corporate capital has within a few years 
been driven out of the city and the State by foolish tax laws, 
which assume that stringent provisions and severe penalties will 
produce a revenue from movable property which can escape by 
•crossing a river. 

At this moment I have nothing further to say, except that 
Mr. O'Brien does not in any way meet the issue raised by 
this Association — namely, that the public reports of the Board of 
.Education are worthless as sufficient exhibits of public business. 

Respectfully submitted, 

{Signed). Frederick B. De Berard, 

For The Merchants' Association of New York. 



15 




New York Life Buildlnz. 



" To Foster the Trade and Welfare of New York!' 

The 
MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION 

OF 

NEW YORK. 

NEW YORK LIFE BUILDING, 

GROUND FLOOR. 



Economist Press, New York 



